Cotter v Revenue and Customs: SC 6 Nov 2013

This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a tax return. He had submitted a tax return but then submitted amendments claiming for losses in the following year. The Revenue sought payment of the tax due under the unamended return by proceedings in the County Court. The taxpayer said that any such proceedings had to be in the First Tier Tribunal, because that Tribunal had exclusive jurisdiction to decide at what stage losses were to be allowed for in the amended return. The erevenue appealed aginst the decision that it must claim in the First Tier Tribunal.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The term ‘return’ refersdto the information in the tax return form which is submitted for ‘for the purpose of establishing the amounts in which a person is chargeable to income tax and capital gains tax’ for the relevant year of assessment and ‘the amount payable by him by way of income tax for that year’. Not everything put in the Tax return by the taxpayer need be in law part of the return. The actual question was whether the claim for losses entered into the return amounted to a defence to the Revenue’s claim for tax. As such that question could be answered in the County and High Courts. It was not an appeal against an assessment to tax for a particular year, which would have to go to the Tribunal.
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2013] UKSC 69, [2013] BTC 837, [2013] 1 WLR 3514, [2013] STC 2480, [2013] STI 3450, [2014] 1 All ER 1, UKSC 2012/0062, [2014] 1 All ER 1
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC Summary, SC
Income Tax Act 2007 128
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAutologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
CitedBlackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
At ChDRevenue and Customs v Cotter ChD 14-Apr-2011
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due . .
CitedHM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .

Cited by:
CitedDe Silva and Another, Regina (on The Application of) v Revenue and Customs SC 15-Nov-2017
The appellants had entered into certain partnerships designed to mitigate liability too income tax by creating trading losses through investments in films. HMRC rejected the claims. HMRC then sought to backdate adjustments to the carry-back claims . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.517445